who was at the council 325?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
4,445
1,272
113
68
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the East and 800 in the West), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[16] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[12] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[17] (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[18] and Evagrius,[19] Hilary of Poitiers,[20] Jerome,[21] Dionysius Exiguus,[22] and Rufinus[23] each recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[24] and the Coptic Orthodox Church.[25] For some, the number is suspicious as it is the number of Abraham's servants in Genesis 14:14, and there was a polemical reason for the Nicene Fathers to imply that they were servants of Abraham, the father of the Faith.[26] Considering this, Hanson concludes, "The number of bishops at the Council of Nicaea probably fell between 250 and 300." (RH, 156)

The bishops did not come alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons, so the total number in attendance could have been above 1,800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes. A Syriac manuscript lists the names of the eastern bishops which included 22 from Coele-Syria, 19 from Syria Palaestina, 10 from Phoenicia, 6 from Arabia, others from Assyria, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc., but the distinction of bishops from presbyters had not yet formed.[27][28]

Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire and from the Christian churches extant within the Sassanid Empire.[29] However, "the Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way." (RH, 156) Referring to an event in 335, Ayres says that “the Western bishops ... had hitherto remained on the periphery of the controversy." (LA, 272) "Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy till he reached the East as a result of being exiled." (RH, 170)

Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea, and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the Council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[30] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[23]

Of the Eastern bishops, the first rank was held by the patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch. "Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians." (LA, 69) "If we are to take the creed at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men." (RH, 235)

Other notable participants were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian. Circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends); Macarius of Jerusalem, later a staunch defender of Athanasius; Aristaces of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly);[31] and Spyridon of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.[32] From foreign places came John, bishop of Persia and India,[33] Theophilus, a Gothic bishop, and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Georgia. The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Die from Gaul,[31] and Domnus of Sirmium from the province of the Danube. . Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[31]

"Athanasius was certainly present as a deacon accompanying Alexander of Alexandria. ... But it is



Most of them suffered for Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response.

“Ancient Baptists” and Other Myths
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Augustin56

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
4,445
1,272
113
68
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response.

“Ancient Baptists” and Other Myths
OK, how did each of those who attended suffer for Christ? which is what I was trying to get at.
 

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
11,966
3,748
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OK, how did each of those who attended suffer for Christ? which is what I was trying to get at.
Constantine called the council, and he had his hand picked crew preside over it, this council was the very foundation in what is now Roman Catholicism

Constantine donated the land and built St Peter's Basilica that's now Vatican City, this is where the "State Church" was formed

1800 bishops were invited to the council all expenses paid, only like 250-300 showed up, the church in 325AD wanted nothing to do with Constatines newly formed "State Church"
 
  • Wow
Reactions: The Learner

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Constantine called the council, and he had his hand picked crew preside over it, this council was the very foundation in what is now Roman Catholicism
False.
Constantine donated the land and built St Peter's Basilica that's now Vatican City, this is where the "State Church" was formed
False.
1800 bishops were invited to the council all expenses paid, only like 250-300 showed up, the church in 325AD wanted nothing to do with Constatines newly formed "State Church"
No, he did not. You have nothing to do with the Church in 325 A.D. You offer no scholarly evidence, cite no recent historian, Protestant or secular, that would support your absurd myth making. You just regurgitate the same anti-Catholic garbage that's been refuted a million times.

Instead of tackling The Learner's challenging question, you weigh in with unproven myths. Can you at least admit Athanasius was a Christian??? No, you will run off with more stupid insults. It's habitual with you.

OK, how did each of those who attended suffer for Christ? which is what I was trying to get at.
After the Edict of Milan in 313, it was illegal to persecute any religion. Before that, persecution varied in intensity and in various places. So we have to find the biographies of each bishop on your list. That's a lot of work for us amateur apologists.
 
Last edited:

BlessedPeace

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2023
5,917
4,612
113
Bend
youtube.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,653
3,590
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
False.

False.

No, he did not. You have nothing to do with the Church in 325 A.D. You offer no scholarly evidence, cite no recent historian, Protestant or secular, that would support your absurd myth making. You just regurgitate the same anti-Catholic garbage that's been refuted a million times.

Instead of tackling The Learner's challenging question, you weigh in with unproven myths.
Where do they come up with this nonsense?

History is well-documented - and yet, they pull thius stuff out of thin air . . .
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Where do they come up with this nonsense?

History is well-documented - and yet, they pull thius stuff out of thin air . . .
Rebellion to authority is part of the fallen nature.
Nobody is born a racist, nobody is born an atheist and nobody is born an anti-Catholic. But the socialization process is the same. In the final analysis, it usually points to a dysfunctional father, or no father at all. The Catholic Church makes the perfect scape goat for those projecting anger or loss on a symbol of parental authority.
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
27,352
14,793
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
An Ancient “Council”…calling a “gathering”…
Of 200, 300, 1,000 men…whatever…number attending… is nothing new from Ancient days to this day…
It is a much SMALLER “GROUP” who IS the Council, and the “invited” Guests are there to Hear “proposals” and “decide” “IF” they shall return to their OWN homelands, and “DICTATE” the TEACHING…”THE Council”…”THE handful of Human men have “Decided”, have “Agreed”, have “Dictated as “THEIR” TRUTHS…to be spread throughout the World.

And Considering WHO…WERE those “throughout the World”….??

The public at large… BOTH eager to Learn About the God, About the Lord…. AND Illiterate…having NO WAY to Verify in Scripture what they were being Taught!

Highly ranked as one of the most notible, clever, longest pertptuated, continually updated and debated Religious scams in it’s, 2,000 year history.



Christ the Lord Jesus’ QUOTE…
John 14:
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Saul / Paul…Baptized IN the Spirit of God…Appointed BY Christ the Lord Jesus to Preach to the Gentiles, the Jews, Kings…
QUOTE…

Rom 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:
[12] Wherefore, as by one man (KIND)sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

IS THAT what famously exalted and quoted councils of MEN have taught for centuries to ILLITERATE man-KIND? Pfff!


Glory to God,
Taken
 

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
11,966
3,748
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can you at least admit Athanasius was a Christian??? No, you will run off with more stupid insults. It's habitual with you.
He was a defender of the faith and was heavily persecuted by Constatines "State Church" leader in Eusebius Nicomedia the Arian, Eusebius who baptized Constatine and he was high priest over the imperial court, and would be considered the first pope in Constatines "State Church"
 
  • Wow
Reactions: The Learner

BlessedPeace

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2023
5,917
4,612
113
Bend
youtube.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
False.

False.

No, he did not. You have nothing to do with the Church in 325 A.D. You offer no scholarly evidence, cite no recent historian, Protestant or secular, that would support your absurd myth making. You just regurgitate the same anti-Catholic garbage that's been refuted a million times.

Instead of tackling The Learner's challenging question, you weigh in with unproven myths. Can you at least admit Athanasius was a Christian??? No, you will run off with more stupid insults. It's habitual with you.


After the Edict of Milan in 313, it was illegal to persecute any religion. Before that, persecution varied in intensity and in various places. So we have to find the biographies of each bishop on your list. That's a lot of work for us amateur apologists.
Paste the scholarly work you've published on this topic.
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Paste the scholarly work you've published on this topic.
I never claimed to be a scholar, or a theologian, or a professional apologist or a historian with a Ph.D. (all enemies of revisionists)
You posted somewhat scholarly work in post #6. I gave you a "like".

It's usually affirmed, by hostile anti-Catholic revisionists, that Constantine was the big boss at Nicaea. He was present in a civil/temporal capacity with no spiritual or religious jurisdiction whatsoever. None. Zilch. He made NO contributions to the canons.
If Constantine convened the council independently from the pope, then other emperors would have convened councils to resolve disputes, but that has not happened in all of church history. No emperor has ever ratified any official church teaching, contrary to the psychotic ramblings of ignorant anti-Catholic bigots, who are too proud to be corrected. .

It is impossible to convene any council, especially one as important as the First Ecumenical Council, without papal approval. I agree that Constantine collaborated with the pope, because he was smart enough to know the basics of church ecclesiology in Acts 15. The basics of church government since Acts 15 has developed, BUT IT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE. Protestants reject the infallibility of the Council of Jerusalem or they ignore it, because it doesn't fit in with the man made tradition of a non-infallible church..


An Ancient “Council”…calling a “gathering”…Of 200, 300, 1,000 men…whatever…number attending… is nothing new from Ancient days to this day…
It is a much SMALLER “GROUP” who IS the Council, and the “invited” Guests are there to Hear “proposals” and “decide” “IF” they shall return to their OWN homelands, and “DICTATE” the TEACHING…”THE Council”…”THE handful of Human men have “Decided”, have “Agreed”, have “Dictated as “THEIR” TRUTHS…to be spread throughout the World.
That would be composers of the Nicene Creed, accepted by 99% of all Christians. If one rejects the Nicene Creed, then they are do-it-yourself quasi-Christians or pseudo-Christians with no history.
And Considering WHO…WERE those “throughout the World”….??
The Greek word for "throughout the world" is kata holos in Romans 1:8. In Latin, it's Catholicus, in English, it's Catholic.
"Catholic" can be a person, a noun, an adjective, or a divine attribute. Mentally ill anti-Catholics use it as a slur, making void the Word of God with their tradition.
The public at large… BOTH eager to Learn About the God, About the Lord…. AND Illiterate…having NO WAY to Verify in Scripture what they were being Taught!
Scripture was and is taught by out loud readings at every Mass since the Road to Emmaus..
Highly ranked as one of the most notible, clever, longest pertptuated, continually updated and debated Religious scams in it’s, 2,000 year history.
Documentation, please. Atheist sources don't count.
Christ the Lord Jesus’ QUOTE…
John 14:
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Saul / Paul…Baptized IN the Spirit of God…Appointed BY Christ the Lord Jesus to Preach to the Gentiles, the Jews, Kings…
QUOTE…

Rom 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:
[12] Wherefore, as by one man (KIND)sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Without the tradition of the episcopate and councils there would be no Bible. You cut off the very branch you are sitting on. Your position is illogical and self defeating. And you are quoting from a Catholic book. And what does your pious rant have anything to do with the Arian heresy??? NOTHING, as usual.
He was a defender of the faith and was heavily persecuted by Constatines "State Church" leader in Eusebius Nicomedia the Arian, Eusebius who baptized Constatine and he was high priest over the imperial court, and would be considered the first pope in Constatines "State Church"
Then why would this " state church pope" Eusebius Nicomedia the Arian preside a council that refuted Arianism? DUH! HELLO??
You are so neck deep in anti-Catholic lies you can't think straight. That garbage rots the mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: The Learner

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
From your post above,post#2
"As a trained patristics scholar, I..."
I posted the link to the author, my formatting was sloppy. I'll try again, but a bit longer
“Ancient Baptists” and Other Myths
Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
<<that's not me.

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. “That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We’ve got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner’s Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow’s closing communion service . . .”

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I’m not making this up. The article, “What Really Happened at Nicea?” actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

"...As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response..."​

All the classical Protestant confessions of faith expressing the beliefs of the various Reformation branches include the doctrinal proclamations of the ancient Catholic Council of Nicea, whereby Christ is professed to be “of one essence” with the Father. The original Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1531, for example, and the later Formula of Concord of 1576-1584, each begin with the mention of the doctrine of the Nicene Council.

Calvin’s French Confession of Faith of 1559 states, “And we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril.” The Scotch Confession of 1560 deals with general councils in its 20th chapter. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, both the original of 1562-1571 and the American version of 1801, explicitly accept the Nicene Creed in article 7.

Even when the particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Calvinist Scotch Confession just mentioned, or in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647.

At first glance, this all seems rather odd to the Catholic reader. After all, every branch of Protestantism professes the absolute and sole sufficiency of Sacred Scripture for establishing the fundamental points of doctrine. Why, then, do these various Protestant confessions bother to bring up the early councils (or any councils) when establishing their core teachings?

Well, we shouldn’t be too quick to accuse them of inconsistency just yet, for all of these confessions make it abundantly clear that the councils of the Church have no authority of their own, but only insofar as they teach things which have a clear warrant in the written Word of God. ………

Read more: http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/other-religions/protestanism/baptists-at-nicea-by-fr-hugh-barbour-o-praem/ or
into your browser.

“Ancient Baptists” and Other Myths <<this link got blocked on my end.

Very kind of you to say, thank you.
You're welcome.
 
Last edited:

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
11,966
3,748
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's usually affirmed, by hostile anti-Catholic revisionists, that Constantine was the big boss at Nicaea. He was present in a civil/temporal capacity with no spiritual or religious jurisdiction whatsoever. None. Zilch. He made NO contributions to the canons.
If Constantine convened the council independently from the pope, then other emperors would have convened councils to resolve disputes, but that has not happened in all of church history. No emperor has ever ratified any official church teaching, contrary to the psychotic ramblings of ignorant anti-Catholic bigots, who are too proud to be corrected. .

It is impossible to convene any council, especially one as important as the First Ecumenical Council, without papal approval. I agree that Constantine collaborated with the pope, because he was smart enough to know the basics of church ecclesiology in Acts 15. The basics of church government since Acts 15 has developed, BUT IT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE. Protestants reject the infallibility of the Council of Jerusalem or they ignore it, because it doesn't fit in with the man made tradition of a non-infallible church..



That would be composers of the Nicene Creed, accepted by 99% of all Christians. If one rejects the Nicene Creed, then they are do-it-yourself quasi-Christians or pseudo-Christians with no history.

The Greek word for "throughout the world" is kata holos in Romans 1:8. In Latin, it's Catholicus, in English, it's Catholic.
"Catholic" can be a person, a noun, an adjective, or a divine attribute. Mentally ill anti-Catholics use it as a slur, making void the Word of God with their tradition.

Scripture was and is taught by out loud readings at every Mass since the Road to Emmaus..

Documentation, please. Atheist sources don't count.

Without the tradition of the episcopate and councils there would be no Bible. You cut off the very branch you are sitting on. Your position is illogical and self defeating. And you are quoting from a Catholic book. And what does your pious rant have anything to do with the Arian heresy??? NOTHING, as usual.

Then why would this " state church pope" Eusebius Nicomedia the Arian preside a council that refuted Arianism? DUH! HELLO??
You are so neck deep in anti-Catholic lies you can't think straight. That garbage rots the mind.

Constantine called the council and presided over it taking part in discussion, he carried out banishment of Christians namely Athanasius who opposed Arianism

Constatine was the creator of the "State Church" there is no anticatholic bias as you falsely claim, Constantine donated the land and built St.Peters Basilica where Vatican City now stands, he was the very foundation of what is now "Roman Catholicism" and the newly created "State Church"

(Part 1)​

Britanica:

First Council of Nicaea​

Christianity [325]

What effect did Constantine I have on the council?

First Council of Nicaea
, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

Eustathius was bishop of Beroea (c. 320) and became bishop of Antioch shortly before the Council of Nicaea (325). The intrigues of the pro-Arian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea led to Eustathius’ deposition by a synod at Antioch (327/330) and banishment to Thrace by the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. The resistance of his followers in Antioch created a Eustathian faction (surviving until c. 485) that developed into the Meletian Schism, a split in the Eastern Church over the doctrine of the Trinity.

Eusebius of Nicomedia​


Written and fact-checked by
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Eusebius of Nicomedia (died c. 342) was an important 4th-century Eastern church bishop who was one of the key proponents of Arianism (the doctrine that Jesus Christ is not of the same substance as God) and who eventually became the leader of an Arian group called the Eusebians.
Died: c. 342

Eusebius may have met Arius, the Alexandrian priest and originator of Arianism, in Antioch as a fellow student under the theologian and martyr St. Lucian. Eusebius was, successively, bishop of Berytus and, about 318, bishop of Nicomedia. In August 323 Arius wrote Eusebius for aid when his teachings were being investigated by Bishop Alexander. In support of Arius’ cause, Eusebius appealed to other bishops. When Arius was condemned in a synod at Alexandria (September 323), Eusebius sheltered him and sponsored a synod (October 323) at Bithynia, which nullified Arius’ excommunication.

Eusebius refused to recognize Christ as being “of the same substance” (homoousion) with the Father. Hence, at the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 325, he led the opposition against the Homoousians. When the council finally accepted their clause, Eusebius signed the creed. He refused, however, to sign the anathema condemning the Arians because he doubted “whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed to him.” Shortly after the council he renewed his alliance with Arius, and the Roman emperor Constantine I the Great exiled him to Gaul, where he remained until he presented a confession of faith in 328.

Through his friendship with the emperor’s sister, Constantia, he was probably responsible for much of the powerful Arian reaction of the emperor’s last years. His unrelenting harassment of the leaders of the Homoousians helped lead Constantine to depose and exile Bishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria at a synod in Tyre in 335 and to reinstate Arius at a synod in Jerusalem in 335. Eusebius was also favoured by Constantine’s son and successor, the pro-Arian Constantius II, and was made bishop of Constantinople in 339. He presided over a synod in Antioch in 341—where a creed omitting the homoousion clause was adopted—and he probably died soon afterward.
 
Last edited:

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
11,966
3,748
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I never claimed to be a scholar, or a theologian, or a professional apologist or a historian with a Ph.D. (all enemies of revisionists)
You posted somewhat scholarly work in post #6. I gave you a "like".

It's usually affirmed, by hostile anti-Catholic revisionists, that Constantine was the big boss at Nicaea. He was present in a civil/temporal capacity with no spiritual or religious jurisdiction whatsoever. None. Zilch. He made NO contributions to the canons.
If Constantine convened the council independently from the pope, then other emperors would have convened councils to resolve disputes, but that has not happened in all of church history. No emperor has ever ratified any official church teaching, contrary to the psychotic ramblings of ignorant anti-Catholic bigots, who are too proud to be corrected. .

It is impossible to convene any council, especially one as important as the First Ecumenical Council, without papal approval. I agree that Constantine collaborated with the pope, because he was smart enough to know the basics of church ecclesiology in Acts 15. The basics of church government since Acts 15 has developed, BUT IT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE. Protestants reject the infallibility of the Council of Jerusalem or they ignore it, because it doesn't fit in with the man made tradition of a non-infallible church..



That would be composers of the Nicene Creed, accepted by 99% of all Christians. If one rejects the Nicene Creed, then they are do-it-yourself quasi-Christians or pseudo-Christians with no history.

The Greek word for "throughout the world" is kata holos in Romans 1:8. In Latin, it's Catholicus, in English, it's Catholic.
"Catholic" can be a person, a noun, an adjective, or a divine attribute. Mentally ill anti-Catholics use it as a slur, making void the Word of God with their tradition.

Scripture was and is taught by out loud readings at every Mass since the Road to Emmaus..

Documentation, please. Atheist sources don't count.

Without the tradition of the episcopate and councils there would be no Bible. You cut off the very branch you are sitting on. Your position is illogical and self defeating. And you are quoting from a Catholic book. And what does your pious rant have anything to do with the Arian heresy??? NOTHING, as usual.

Then why would this " state church pope" Eusebius Nicomedia the Arian preside a council that refuted Arianism? DUH! HELLO??
You are so neck deep in anti-Catholic lies you can't think straight. That garbage rots the mind.
(Part 2)

Constantine donated the land and built St Peter's Basilica thats present day Vatican City, he created a Mosaic with himself and St. Peter, Roman Emperor Constatine is the very foundational father of present day (Roman Catholicism)


Britanica: Old Saint Peter’s Basilica

first basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome, a five-aisled basilican-plan church with apsed transept at the west end that was begun between 326 and 333 at the order of the Roman emperor Constantine and finished about 30 years later. The church was entered through an atrium called Paradise that enclosed a garden with fountains. From the atrium there were five doors into the body of the church. The nave was terminated by an arch with a mosaic of Constantine, accompanied by St. Peter, presenting a model of his church to Christ. On the clerestory walls, each pierced by 11 windows, were frescoes of the patriarchs, prophets, and Apostles and scenes from the Old and New Testaments. Old St. Peter’s was torn down in the early 16th century and replaced by New St. Peter’s (see Saint Peter’s Basilica).
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is impossible to convene any council, especially one as important as the First Ecumenical Council, without papal approval.
You know I disagree with this, right?

Sorry, but there isn't a shred of evidence for that collaboration.


None of these three links offers such support. Your "Anti-Catholic myths" link doesn't mention Pope Sylvester at all. Your popehistory.com link states:

"The pope had two legates named Vincentius and Vitus who represented him at the meeting, and both were treated with honor though they did not preside over the event. The pope later gave his official approval to the decisions of the council after the return of his legates." Nothing on collaboration here. Nothing inconsistent with what the historians (Williams and Hanson, for example) say was Constantine's independent brainchild.

Your historyofchristianitypodcast.com link states:

"The bishop of Rome at the time was Sylvester I (285-335 AD). Sylvester did not attend the council but did send representatives and did approve of the decisions made at the council." Again, nothing on collaboration here, and nothing inconsistent with the Council of Nicaea being Constantine's independent brainchild.

But what this link does tellingly say is: "The Arian controversy was seen as an eastern issue and one that it was not as relevant to the west." EXACTLY RIGHT. And your comment


is undermined by the Eastern center of the Arian controversy. It was Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria who had a heretic problem! That is where Arius spawned his heresy. Alexander (or his deacon Athanasius) is the one who sent the letter to bishops throughout Christendom asking that Arianism be condemned. It was Constantine, upon learning of the heresy, who tried to quell it in his letter to the two combatants. Certainly Constantine's letter to the bishops summoning them to Nicaea doesn't mention Pope Sylvester at all. And of all the many survivng letters among various parties involved in the Arian controversy, Pope Sylvester authored zero. Indeed, none of those letters by these various bishops and prelates appeals to the Roman ecclesiastical authority or trades on his moral suasion, or even hints that the Pope has taken Alexander's side against Arius.

Was Sylvester made aware of the Arian heresy? Of course. Did he participate in organizing the Council that condemned it, or even approve such a convention in advance? Show me ONE document that attests to his doing so. Just ONE.



No. I suspect that at some point he did meet Sylvester. But that doesn't make Sylvester the emperor's bosom buddy. Your Catholic Encyclopedia link says "legend brings him into close relationship with the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact." I don't deal in legends. I'll just mention that when the Arian controversy sparked his letter convening a council, Constantine had already moved his seat of government from Rome to Nicomedia, so consulting with the Pope wasn't a matter of a stroll down Capitoline Hill.
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
27,352
14,793
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are so neck deep in anti-Catholic lies you can't think straight. That garbage rots the mind.

Freewill is every individuals OPTION.

You Chose to be associated and adjoined with a Religious Organization, in that such organization Calls itself “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,” and Calls it’s members of that Organization, “CATHOLICS.”

I also made a Choice to be associated with and adjoined with a Religious Organization, that Christ Jesus Himself Established, Called “Christ’s Church”, and it’s members of that Organization called, “CONVERTED IN CHRIST.”

Your whining that I did not CHOOSE and some OTHERS DID NOT CHOOSE what YOU CHOSE, is MOOT.

You can pretend ALL DAY LONG that your Negative Accusations and Gaslighting Against Others, “makes your choices Right”…
“And an others choices Wrong”.
It doesn’t. It simply makes you an Accuser and Gaslighter.

Glory to God,
Taken
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You know I disagree with this, right?
Your disagreement is based on a flawed understanding of early church ecclesiology THAT PREDATES NICAE, a structure that is consistent with the Council of Jerusalem that continued all the way up to Vatican II. A Protestant ecclesiology couldn't possibly refute the Arian heresy because they inconsistently reject the authority of the Magisterium, but accept the Nicene Creed composed by the said Magisterium.o_O The claim that Constantine convened a council independently from the pope is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit the pattern of how councils have always been convened. I think Constantine understood the pope/bishops relationship, and knew he couldn't possibly gather so many bishops independently from the Pope.

Moreover, if Constantine independently convened or ruled over First Council of Nicaea without the Pope, then we should be able to find at least some reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing a solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the many myths of Constantine.

Was Sylvester made aware of the Arian heresy? Of course. Did he participate in organizing the Council that condemned it, or even approve such a convention in advance? Show me ONE document that attests to his doing so. Just ONE.
How could Pope Sylvester approve of anything in advance over a heresy that had not yet been formally refuted??? Pope Sylvester approved the reports made by his legates AFTER THE COUNCIL, not in ADVANCE of the council.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: The Learner